Pedersoli Co. drops support of Toby Bridges due to his extreme views on Muzzleloading, other sponsors also reconsidering.

"In the past we allowed Mr. Bridges to test our traditional ML rifles as well as our in-line ML rifles and he had our cooperation and limited sponsorship. Due to the new path Mr. Bridges has taken , in which traditional muzzle loading rifles would no longer have their current exclusive hunting period and in which in-line rifles would hunt at the same time as the traditional rifles, we have withdrawn our former support and sponsorship of Toby Bridges.

The Davide Pedersoli company has advised Mr. Toby Bridges to remove our company name from any list of sponsors who support his lobbying efforts because even though we manufacture in-line muzzle loading rifles, we strongly support the use of traditional types of flintlock and percussion lock rifles during hunting periods assigned to muzzle loading rifles.

We always believed that the hunting with muzzleloading guns, both traditional and modern black powder in-line rifles, could co-exist, even if two different muzzleloading hunting seasons would be more required. Certainly we never thought they could get into conflict with each other.
We regret Toby Bridge's decision which surprised us, considering that in the past he took important positions, which we could share, but absolutely not his last one.

The use of traditional muzzleloading rifles for hunting has all the historical, political and rational reasons to continue and to expand and cannot be forced to die, as Toby Bridges warns and predicts (and is trying to make happen) nor can be the enthusiasm and will of people who are dedicated to this traditional sector be disregarded. On the contrary, the traditional muzzle loading guns contributed surely much more than the modern in-line muzzleloading guns have to the muzzle loading hunting being accepted in our states. Rather than trying to promote the in-line rifles and push aside the exclusive hunting season for traditional percussion or flintlock rifles we should all be working to strengthen the separation of hunting seasons for archers, traditional muzzle loading rifles, the powerful in-line rifles and of course the modern cartridge rifles.

The in-line rifles are closer to the modern high power cartridge rifles and we hope that all government officials involved with making or changing hunting rules will recognize the big difference in power and range which in-line rifles (which use conical bullets) have over the traditional antique or replica rifles which use round ball bullets. Both archery hunters and traditional muzzle loading rifle hunters accept the great challenge and limitation of their hunting weapons, the need to stalk the game and get very close in order to make a clean killing shot. For the in-line rifle and modern cartridge rifle hunters a much different challenge is presented and the mixing of traditional and in-line rifles in the field at the same time would be unacceptable to the vast majority of traditional muzzle loading rifle users.

I read the letter Toby Bridges published in his web site in which he explained he has been misunderstood. I acknowledge his effort, however this letter gives me the opportunity to contradict Toby about the in-line rifles being the natural modern evolution of the muzzleloading guns.

The real modern aspect was when many years ago some of the American states opened the hunting season to the muzzleloading guns. This was a modernity sign! What happened later with the introduction of the in-line rifles and the continuous improvements to reach high performances, such as the use of pelletized substitute powder, waterproof ignition systems or sabot bullets, etc. made the modern muzzloading guns get closer to the modern cartridge gun performance. I am convinced that most of the hunters using in-line rifles are only taking advantage of this enhanced performance in a dedicated muzzleloading hunting season. I am also convinced that if the muzzleloading hunting season becomes an "open hunting season", several of the users of the in-line rifles will drop their rifles to hunt only with the modern ones.
I have to say that I am fond of the hunt in all its aspects, I am a hunter with modern guns, with cartridge guns, with muzzleloading traditional guns and with in-line rifles.

Davide Pedersoli is not against the modern in-line rifle hunting, which we consider as an alternative and different activity from the one with traditional guns . Without doubt, hunting with traditional guns must be protected and sustained in the spirit of the rules approved in many of the American states because it gives the American sportsman a hunting challenge and emotional satisfaction which no other type of gun can give."

Pierangelo Pedersoli, President

Davide Pedersoli & C.
Via Artigiani 57
I-25063 Gardone Valtrompia (Brescia) Italy
ph.030 8915000 fax 030 8911019
www.davide-pedersoli.com

Don't know what this is really about...or if it really fits into the theme of this website.

Do know:
It's Pedersoli's choice who they support and who they don't; who agrees and who dissagrees isn't important (and either way, it's nice to see a gun company take a stand on ANYTHING).
----
Personal opinion:
There shouldn't be a muzzle loading season at all...either you like stoot-guns and hunt with them, or you don't. If you do, then get into the areas where one-shot and short range isn't too great a handicap.

Now if we had no muzzle loader seasons, then I'm resonably sure the in-lines would not be nearly as popular...the tradtionals hold people's historic interrest, not just a way to get to shoot deer in a specail season.

So let them all, modern firearm or muzzle loader, shoot in the one and only season....the people who really like muzzle loaders will still hunt with them, the other's won't.

Don't know what this is really about...or if it really fits into the theme of this website.

Please feel free to remove the thread if you feel it's it's inappropriate... :)

Please feel free to remove the thread if you feel it's it's inappropriate... :)

Think it fits...not political or offensive and is interresting.

I've sure got to agree with ribbonstone's points. I know that when I bought my last muzzle loader, a Remington 700 ML in 54 caliber it was only with the intention of taking a longer season on elk and shooting them with conical bullets pushed with large doses of a black powder subsitute.

This was with no intention of enjoying the muzzle loading experience but to take advantage of liberal early and late seasons that I could not hunt with my center fire rifle.

Guess what, the State came along and seems to have folks in fish and game that were smart enough to realize that lots of folks were making the muzzle loader season into an extension of the rifle season using modern muzzle loaders capable of taking game at ranges near what center fire rifles were doing.

next thing you know they had changed the regs and now had two black powder seasons. One for tridational muzzle loaders using round balls, loose powder and swing hammer guns and one for the inline super duper guns like mine. The super duper season was severly limited.

Is this good or bad. Well I relized what a jerk I had been trying to take advantage of these extended seasons and that I really needed to rethink what the muzzle loading season really was for.

Gone is my Model 700 Rem muzzle loader and in it's place is a little CVA swinghammer 50 caliber gun. I don't know if I will hunt with it this fall, but the challange this gun poses makes me actually hunt instead of just harvest like I do in the center fire rifle season.

The problem with these modern muzzleloaders is that their high velocity - high ballistic coefficient bullets have a maximum range long enough to land in the next county. Muzzleloaders are allowed in otherwise archery and shotgun only zones here in Saskatchewan thanks to the short range of round balls and conventional conicals. These are semi-built-up areas near the large cities. Once the game department gets enough complaints of saboted bullets whizzing through acreages they'll kill the muzzleloader season there and everybody loses.

Bye
Jack

I agree with Jack. With some of the in-line muzzleloaders, you would be more handicapped with a Singleshot centerfire in 45/70, 30-30 or a number of other chamberings.

But lets put the in-line question this way:

IF there were no special muzzle loading season, would a lot of in-lines be sold each year?

However, given the urge to own and play with historically accurate reproductions, belive there would still be a market for tradtional rifles. Will give you that it would be a smaller market, but I know many tradtionalist that enjoy their tradtional rifles and pistols with no intention of every shooting game with them.

Well, I've seen some ugly results of the in-line seasons. Guy like Shockey out there telling people buy XYZ and you can shoot deer at 250 yards. Some of these gun produce impressive looking big numbers on the mathmatical formulations but the real world results don't always follow the numbers.

Like my argument on many other things, getting the bullet to hit where it's supposed to is only one part of the equation, making sure it performs properly after it impacts is a totally different world. Shooting a block of ballistics gel on a range is one thing, shooting an animal in the woods and getting the same results is something else. Unfortunately, I've had the displeasure of seeing a lot of deer go to waste after being shot with non-performing bullets from in-lines. The first season PA allowed in-lines for hunting, the woods were littered with the rotting carcases of deer that were wounded and never recovered.

Do some searching on the web and you'll find a lot of horror stories about in-lines; pellets not burning properly and flying like tracers down range, bullets that didn't expand like they were supposed to and so on.

"Traditional muzzleloader seasons" were put in place to allow hunting with "traditional" guns. The advent of the in-lines being introduced into this season would be the same as making the argument that I should be allowed to tote my scoped M70 .30-06 in archry season because it's nothing more than a "slightly improved" bow & arrow. How can one agrue that archry season is somehow different than primative muzzleloader season?

What about all the people like me who can't pull a bow string back because of physical limitations, should there be special exceptions made for us so we can shoot arrows launched with a blank cartridge? Then again my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so mayby I should make the arguement that since I can't see as good, my cartridge arrow gun should be allowed to have a scope too.

Or how about this one.... I'm very sensitive to the cold & damp so maybe I should argue that my rights are being violated because I can't go waterfowl hunting in july instead october.

Where do we draw the line folks?

I've been wanting to get into cap'n'ball shootin...


You can bet that Pedersoli just got moved to the top of the list!!!

Muzzleloaders are allowed in otherwise archery and shotgun only zones here in Saskatchewan thanks to the short range of round balls and conventional conicals.

Didn't one of Danny Morgan's boys shoot Gen'l Fraser out of the saddle at Saratoga from 400 yards? Hardly "short range" if true.

May be more than saboted bullets whizzing through those sub-urban acres, Jack.

The Old Guy

It's not the question of hitting a Redcoat at 400 yards. It's maximum dangerous range. Let's fire up JBM's maximum range calculator.

http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/maxdist/maxdist.html

Now a .50 calibre round ball has a ballistic coefficient of 0.07 and it takes a pretty stiff load to reach 2000 fps. JBM gives a maximum range of 1177 yards.

Hornady doesn't list the ballistic coefficent of the SST/ML bullet, but I'd estimate the 300 grain 50 calibre as 0.3. Hodgdon's Triple 7 data for a 100 grain load is 1746 fps for a maximum range of 3347 yards.

https://www.hornady.com/shop/?ps_session=f8b154cc6206b4452ce1b695c39c248e&page=shop%2Fbrowse&category_id=fb73b4b3a3f422cdff2546992d2a2166

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/muzzleloading/granular/t7rifle-sabot.php

Check out the 170 grain .30-30 load. The Winchester 170 Power-Point load at 2200 fps gives 3150 yards.

http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/cfrdetail.aspx?symbol=X30303&cart=MzAtMzAgV2luY2hlc3Rlcg==

Bye
Jack

Jack,

True the projectile shape will allow it to have less drag and such be capable of physically flying longer before giving into friction & gravity .... however, we must not ignore its performance after it impacts the intended target for this is where the problems arise.

If we look solely at numbers, as Bridges & Wakeman are trying to do, then one can make the argument, based on those numbers that the 220 Swift tossing a 55gr bullet at 3960 fps is a capable big game round because it produces 1916 ftlbs of energy, a far cry above the 700 ftlbs Bridges claims to be the cut-off point.

Now, if we look at more numbers in the form of the Taylor KO, this 55gr .224" bullet gets a KO rating of 7. If we look at a proper hunting bullet for BPCR such as the .505" diameter 600gr moving at mere 1400 fps the Taylor KO rating becomes 61 w/ energy of 2612 ftlbs. Now, the little .30-30 pushing a 170gr bullet at 2320 fps only gets a rating of 17 on the Taylor scale but it has an energy of 2032 ftlbs.

If we look at only the energy numbers, one would conclude that the .30-30 and the .220 Swift are pretty much the same. If we take each out to the field and place a round from each into the shoulder joint of a 180# deer, which one is going to kill the deer and which one will let it hobble off wounded?

Working the numbers is fine at tax time but performance in the field is the absolute sole determining factor for bullets. When one begins to ignore the "praticle" for the "theoretical", therein lies the beginning of the end for all that is fit and proper.

This shift to lighter bullets @ higher velocity across the board is producing big numbers on the calculator but they are not corresponding to the actual performance in the field.

Let's take the 45-70 as an example. You can drop down to a 280gr or 300gr, as is the standard practice these days, and get higher velocity & a flatter trajectory but once that bullet hits its target, the lack of performance becomes a very real and serious issue.

I did some bullet testing a while back that told me what not to use in a .35 Remington.
http://www.shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=4170

Another gent did a more through test and got the same results.
http://www.marlinowners.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=7180

The Taylor Index does have its merits, but if you read his books, you'll realize that some of his disciples have more confidence in it than he did.

Bye
Jack

As one guy put it on another forum, "2500 pound car going 40 mph, deer ran off, car got towed." Just some FYI, that works out to 133,928 ftlbs of energy.

I think a lot of people put way too much into the numbers game and leave way too much "real world experience" out.

As one guy put it on another forum, "2500 pound car going 40 mph, deer ran off, car got towed." Just some FYI, that works out to 133,928 ftlbs of energy.

I think a lot of people put way too much into the numbers game and leave way too much "real world experience" out.
Amen...I've hunted decades with excellent quality Remington 700's and big Leupold scopes....264 WinMag, .30-30, .30-06, .35Rem...and they're excellent rigs to deliver energy at 200-300 yards when you need to do that.

However, for the past 12-15 years I've hunted with muzzleloaders and have killed more and bigger bucks during this time with Flintlocks and PRBs than than at any other time in my life, and have never lost a deer shot with a muzzleloader...99% of them either drop in their tracks or pile up in sight after a mad dash of 25-35yds...had to really learn how to deer hunt and get up close & personal instead of just sitting over a beanfield with a rifle that could tip over a mountain 500yds away.

Greatest satisfaction to me is laying a Flintlock back down across my lap with smoke curling up out of the vent and a good buck laying in the leaves 50yds out...I think "this is how they did it...this is how the settlers survived every day"...no other deer I've take at any distance with any of my other rigs comes close to the feeling...and Flintlocks are all I've hunted anything with for the past 5 years now...deer, squirrels, turkey, etc...

Pedersoli Co. drops support of Toby Bridges due to his extreme views on Muzzleloading, other sponsors also reconsidering.

"In the past we allowed Mr. Bridges to test our traditional ML rifles as well as our in-line ML rifles and he had our cooperation and limited sponsorship. Due to the new path Mr. Bridges has taken , in which traditional muzzle loading rifles would no longer have their current exclusive hunting period and in which in-line rifles would hunt at the same time as the traditional rifles, we have withdrawn our former support and sponsorship of Toby Bridges.

The Davide Pedersoli company has advised Mr. Toby Bridges to remove our company name from any list of sponsors who support his lobbying efforts because even though we manufacture in-line muzzle loading rifles, we strongly support the use of traditional types of flintlock and percussion lock rifles during hunting periods assigned to muzzle loading rifles.

We always believed that the hunting with muzzleloading guns, both traditional and modern black powder in-line rifles, could co-exist, even if two different muzzleloading hunting seasons would be more required. Certainly we never thought they could get into conflict with each other.
We regret Toby Bridge's decision which surprised us, considering that in the past he took important positions, which we could share, but absolutely not his last one.

The use of traditional muzzleloading rifles for hunting has all the historical, political and rational reasons to continue and to expand and cannot be forced to die, as Toby Bridges warns and predicts (and is trying to make happen) nor can be the enthusiasm and will of people who are dedicated to this traditional sector be disregarded. On the contrary, the traditional muzzle loading guns contributed surely much more than the modern in-line muzzleloading guns have to the muzzle loading hunting being accepted in our states. Rather than trying to promote the in-line rifles and push aside the exclusive hunting season for traditional percussion or flintlock rifles we should all be working to strengthen the separation of hunting seasons for archers, traditional muzzle loading rifles, the powerful in-line rifles and of course the modern cartridge rifles.

The in-line rifles are closer to the modern high power cartridge rifles and we hope that all government officials involved with making or changing hunting rules will recognize the big difference in power and range which in-line rifles (which use conical bullets) have over the traditional antique or replica rifles which use round ball bullets. Both archery hunters and traditional muzzle loading rifle hunters accept the great challenge and limitation of their hunting weapons, the need to stalk the game and get very close in order to make a clean killing shot. For the in-line rifle and modern cartridge rifle hunters a much different challenge is presented and the mixing of traditional and in-line rifles in the field at the same time would be unacceptable to the vast majority of traditional muzzle loading rifle users.

I read the letter Toby Bridges published in his web site in which he explained he has been misunderstood. I acknowledge his effort, however this letter gives me the opportunity to contradict Toby about the in-line rifles being the natural modern evolution of the muzzleloading guns.

The real modern aspect was when many years ago some of the American states opened the hunting season to the muzzleloading guns. This was a modernity sign! What happened later with the introduction of the in-line rifles and the continuous improvements to reach high performances, such as the use of pelletized substitute powder, waterproof ignition systems or sabot bullets, etc. made the modern muzzloading guns get closer to the modern cartridge gun performance. I am convinced that most of the hunters using in-line rifles are only taking advantage of this enhanced performance in a dedicated muzzleloading hunting season. I am also convinced that if the muzzleloading hunting season becomes an "open hunting season", several of the users of the in-line rifles will drop their rifles to hunt only with the modern ones.
I have to say that I am fond of the hunt in all its aspects, I am a hunter with modern guns, with cartridge guns, with muzzleloading traditional guns and with in-line rifles.

Davide Pedersoli is not against the modern in-line rifle hunting, which we consider as an alternative and different activity from the one with traditional guns . Without doubt, hunting with traditional guns must be protected and sustained in the spirit of the rules approved in many of the American states because it gives the American sportsman a hunting challenge and emotional satisfaction which no other type of gun can give."

Pierangelo Pedersoli, President

Davide Pedersoli & C.
Via Artigiani 57
I-25063 Gardone Valtrompia (Brescia) Italy
ph.030 8915000 fax 030 8911019
www.davide-pedersoli.com
Kudos for Pedersoli!! I have a Pedersoli Frontier (Blue Ridge) .45 cal. flintlock. It's a beautiful rifle that shoots great and a sure sparker. It's nice to see a company stand up for ethics.

Kudos for Pedersoli!! I have a Pedersoli Frontier (Blue Ridge) .45 cal. flintlock. It's a beautiful rifle that shoots great and a sure sparker. It's nice to see a company stand up for ethics.

Heck, send tham a 'thank you' Email and tell them...they'd be delighted to hear some positive feedback

Jack,

True the projectile shape will allow it to have less drag and such be capable of physically flying longer before giving into friction & gravity .... however, we must not ignore its performance after it impacts the intended target for this is where the problems arise.

If we look solely at numbers, as Bridges & Wakeman are trying to do, then one can make the argument, based on those numbers that the 220 Swift tossing a 55gr bullet at 3960 fps is a capable big game round because it produces 1916 ftlbs of energy, a far cry above the 700 ftlbs Bridges claims to be the cut-off point.

Now, if we look at more numbers in the form of the Taylor KO, this 55gr .224" bullet gets a KO rating of 7. If we look at a proper hunting bullet for BPCR such as the .505" diameter 600gr moving at mere 1400 fps the Taylor KO rating becomes 61 w/ energy of 2612 ftlbs. Now, the little .30-30 pushing a 170gr bullet at 2320 fps only gets a rating of 17 on the Taylor scale but it has an energy of 2032 ftlbs.

If we look at only the energy numbers, one would conclude that the .30-30 and the .220 Swift are pretty much the same. If we take each out to the field and place a round from each into the shoulder joint of a 180# deer, which one is going to kill the deer and which one will let it hobble off wounded?

Working the numbers is fine at tax time but performance in the field is the absolute sole determining factor for bullets. When one begins to ignore the "praticle" for the "theoretical", therein lies the beginning of the end for all that is fit and proper.

This shift to lighter bullets @ higher velocity across the board is producing big numbers on the calculator but they are not corresponding to the actual performance in the field.

Let's take the 45-70 as an example. You can drop down to a 280gr or 300gr, as is the standard practice these days, and get higher velocity & a flatter trajectory but once that bullet hits its target, the lack of performance becomes a very real and serious issue.
If any who throw around Taylor's KO numbers would bother to read the book in which they were published they would learn what Taylor himself said. He stated clearly and repeatedly that those numbers only applied to African Big game such as elephant, hippo, rhino and buffalo. They were not an index of "killing power", not to be applied to lighter game, not to be applied to smallbore high velocity rifles, and Taylor defined "small bore" as including .30 caliber.and "High velocity" as over 2600fps. He did not publish the formula by which he had calculated those numbers expressly because he feared it would be mis-applied.
But of course, it was not hard to figure out his formula and now it is mis-applied just as he expected, even used as a handgun "stopping power" number. Taylor only intended it to give an idea of how long an elephant would be "knocked out" with a head shot that missed the brain! People use Taylor's name to add creedance to their own idea while using Taylor's formula in exactly the way Taylor himself stressed that it should never be applied.

I understand the reasons PA allowed all kinds of muzzleloaders a week in October for antlerless deer overlapping w/ the three day Jr/Sr antlerless hunt. Their objective is to get people out and lower the buck doe ratio b/4 the rut.

I still use my flintlock because I really don't want to buy any more guns and I enjoy the blackpowder. I'm using dad's flinter 'cause I never got a chance to enjoy it w/ him when he was alive and I accept the limitations of this weapon because they make me hunt.

My only 'improvement' was a set of fiber optic sights from T/C cause despite the yellow paint, the iron front sight just seems to disapear in front of these 52 year old eyes...

Last year I carried the flintlock on (5) days between the october hunt and the traditional post season flintlock season. I hunted (6) days w/ the .270 and took a deer w/ each. I think I have the best of both worlds...

That's true about Taylor. He also mentioned that high velocity cartridges like the .375 H&H Magnum and .416 Rigby performed better than his formula predicted.

The Taylor formula rates the .30-06 and the .35 Remington as very close to equal. I've got both, and while the .35 Remington does hit hard, I don't think it's at a .30-06 level.

Bye
Jack

Well, I've seen some ugly results of the in-line seasons. Guy like Shockey out there telling people buy XYZ and you can shoot deer at 250 yards. Some of these gun produce impressive looking big numbers on the mathmatical formulations but the real world results don't always follow the numbers.

Like my argument on many other things, getting the bullet to hit where it's supposed to is only one part of the equation, making sure it performs properly after it impacts is a totally different world. Shooting a block of ballistics gel on a range is one thing, shooting an animal in the woods and getting the same results is something else. Unfortunately, I've had the displeasure of seeing a lot of deer go to waste after being shot with non-performing bullets from in-lines. The first season PA allowed in-lines for hunting, the woods were littered with the rotting carcases of deer that were wounded and never recovered.

Do some searching on the web and you'll find a lot of horror stories about in-lines; pellets not burning properly and flying like tracers down range, bullets that didn't expand like they were supposed to and so on.

"Traditional muzzleloader seasons" were put in place to allow hunting with "traditional" guns. The advent of the in-lines being introduced into this season would be the same as making the argument that I should be allowed to tote my scoped M70 .30-06 in archry season because it's nothing more than a "slightly improved" bow & arrow. How can one agrue that archry season is somehow different than primative muzzleloader season?

What about all the people like me who can't pull a bow string back because of physical limitations, should there be special exceptions made for us so we can shoot arrows launched with a blank cartridge? Then again my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so mayby I should make the arguement that since I can't see as good, my cartridge arrow gun should be allowed to have a scope too.

Or how about this one.... I'm very sensitive to the cold & damp so maybe I should argue that my rights are being violated because I can't go waterfowl hunting in july instead october.

Where do we draw the line folks? Mark, I've been hunting here in Pa for quite a number of years, would you mind telling me what unit, or county was littered with deer carcasses killed by inlines. A few years back when the game commission changed the deer hunting regulations, the butcher shops nor the commission didn't plan for the hugh influx of does that were killed in the early muzzleloader season, and the processors got overwhelmed with deer to butcher, hunters were being turned away, so instead of doing it themselves or looking around for someone to butcher the deer for them, the morons actually dumped the deer in the woods, the many food banks here in Pa would of been glad to take the deer and butcher them to feed the hungry, but no it was better to starting bitching about how the game commission screwed things up. Inlines had nothing to do with that, because the early season allows the use of any type of smokepole you have, except double barreled guns like Traditions new rifle, any type of ignition, any type of projectile, unlike the the primitive season allowing only flintlocks, no scopes, but still any projectile you want to use. Get your facts straight son, we have enough hear say from the anti's to deal with, we don't need to help them. By the way, I hunt in two different units here in western pa where I live, I use a 54cal great plains with round ball, or my AustinHalleck with a sabot, or my Lyman deer stalker 54cal flintlock with conical. I personally consider myself blessed to have so many options to use all my smokepoles.

I was beating myself up while hunting in the Indiana Muzzle-Loader/Late Archery season yesterday afternoon, Why haven't I got up with the times and got a Muzzle-Loader Barrel For my T/C Encore?.... Conagher you dip-sh*t you didn't even get a shot at a deer during the firearms season! My T/C .54 cal. percussion Hawken with a patched round ball came through again and anchored a nice 165 lb. doe. This time the wind was right, my patients factor was a lot better, and I just plain felt good about being out in the woods. I built this hawken from a kit so I show a lot of favoritisim twards this particular rifle. That T/C Hawken sure has put a lot of venisen in my freezer. I guess I like doing things the hard way but I still have been looking at the Pro-Hunter barrles for the Encore and yes I will scope it if I get one next year. As far as I am conserned if it loads from the muzzle it is a muzzle-loader, I just like the feeling I get from using an older style rifle especially when a deer is soon on the way to the processer. :D

Now if we had an American firearms company that had the nerve to express their opinions like that Italian company does, maybe we'd have less problems. A few years back, archers here used recurves or longbows. Along came the compound. The world changed. Why practice for years when we can shoot right out of the box? Same with muzzleloaders. Nice scopes, stainless steel, clean powders. Quick, clean, efficient. Perfect for an instant "Dan'l Boone". I ejoy the traditions of my ancestors but can see where we are headed. There will be a few continue the old way, but the days are nearing an end when you'll see a side hammer or flintlock in the field.

Now if we had an American firearms company that had the nerve to express their opinions like that Italian company does, maybe we'd have less problems. A few years back, archers here used recurves or longbows. Along came the compound. The world changed. Why practice for years when we can shoot right out of the box? Same with muzzleloaders. Nice scopes, stainless steel, clean powders. Quick, clean, efficient. Perfect for an instant "Dan'l Boone". I ejoy the traditions of my ancestors but can see where we are headed. There will be a few continue the old way, but the days are nearing an end when you'll see a side hammer or flintlock in the field.
Not So! The Rocklock season in PENNA surrvives. In October, my Renegade flinter doesen't raise an eyebrow amongst all those stainless steel scoped in-line thingies...

Now if we only had an American gun maker with the nerve to express an opinion and make decisions like that Italian company. As we came to become an "instant" society, the compound bow replaced the recurve and long bow. Now the traditional muzzleloader is being replaced with the inline. People tend to want what's easy. Stainless steel, clean powder,big scopes and plastic. I'm a traditionalist. Enjoying a French-Cherokee heritage, but as the world moves on, things change. Get ready, because the inline is here to stay. And it may well be the last of many designs we'll be able to use. All this whining about who's hunting with what won't matter much when Big Brother and lack of places to hunt force us to hang up our guns. I personally hate the idea of only being able to tell stories to my grand kids about "how it used to be". We may carry a certain gun once but the memories we can carry a lifetime.

I certainly have not read this entire thread, however about the special season. I think it is very important to have a separate ML season. A rifle constricted to 150 yards is a handi cap. just like a separate handgun season. it is a centerfire, so why have a separate season for them? That is my way of thinking anyways. at least something on those lines.
John

I think some are missing the general point.

A hunting license is just that. A license, granted by the controlling game authority, to take game in the manner proscribed by that game agency.

Either you accept the license and the terms that come with it, or you do not. It's your choice. If you don't like the regulations, don't hunt in that location.

There are an estimated 36 million white-tailed deer in the US.

36 million.

These animals need to be hunted and killed in accordance with a given state's biological guidelines. There are so many variables at the state level, that I will put my trust in the state biologists to set seasons, bag limits, and method of take. When states have thousands of unclaimed deer tags each season (mostly doe tags), the method of take becomes less of a issue.

That being said, I give an equal amount of respect to the same biological guidelines when it involves a game animal that does not enjoy the vast populations that the white-tail deer does. This is where I think the traditional methods of take become more relevant.

Same exact analogy for certain geographic locations that require certain traditional methods of take. I'm all for special seasons if the state biologists deem them necessary.

As to in-line muzzleloading in general, I think there is much misinformation out there.

Jim Shockey's occasional long range shooting is the absolute exception, not the rule. If you watch his programs and really pay attention to his style, you will see that he does not advocate long distance shooting. You may see him do it on occasion, but many of us do things on occasion.

An unethical hunter will be unethical with any weapon he/she uses. That same hunter will cripple ducks & geese, elk, turkeys, etc.

For the most part, 150 yards is the max range for most in-liners. 100 yards is preferred. Can the gun be juiced up with more powder? Some can. Some cannot.

Add in that many states limit muzzleloaders by restricting scope magnification, what types of primer systems can be used, etc., and I don't think that in-lines are quite the 300 yard tack drivers that some make them out to be.

As for Pedersoli's comments, I would expect no less from the manufacturer of the item at issue. Of course he must condemn anything that might eliminate the need for the product he sells.

Internet Wizards be darned - I'll stick with the state fish & game biologists :)

mudhen - CA

Too bad that is Pedersoli's view.

I hunt with a CVA Optima 209 in .50 cal, and make no qualms about why - I want to hunt in the muzzleloading season, and want something with a bit more range than my bows. I seldom ever take a shot over 75 yards with it.

It cracks me up when I see post on this board regarding "traditional" v/s modern. Those people are the ones I'm going to blame when the muzzleloading season completely goes away - completely blame them and them only, as they have separated groups of hunters and pitted them against each other instead of respecting each others views and needs.

Something else that really cracks me up regarding the "v/s" is the claims that are too wishy-washy. I've seen and heard claims that inlines should be banned because they "shoot further, more accurately, etc.... Then in that same post, another person will claim that their "traditional" rifles are far superior to modern inlines, and that THEY shoot further, more accurately, etc...

I mean really - lay it on the line here - what is the REAL difference between the guns? Here are my observations:
1) Looks. They don't look the same. Modern inlines resemble cartridge guns more than they do their muzzleloading counterparts.
2) Location of the ignition system - open to the air, or closed. The distance is mere inches or less, but one is directly behind the charge, and one is not. The percussion cap is basically (I know not totally, but basically) the same premise as the 209 cap - just nowhere near as waterproof. Hammer comes down on it, and it feeds the primary charge. OK - flints are a totally different ballgame. But the differences in PC and 209 cap are more closely related... so why aren't the flintlock guys attacking the PC guys too? Heck, it's slightly different - why not start a stupid war here also and further divide the hunting community against one another.

I bring my CVA Optima 209 to the range almost every time I go out there, and shoot it along with my .270, .22's, .40, 20 gauge slug gun, etc... It's a blast to shoot, and I enjoy it. I'd shoot it even if there wasn't a season for it, as I just enjoy shooting for accuracy and practice.

I have seen a Pedersoli at the range I go to. It was a very sweet looking gun. I immediatly wanted one. After seeing Pedersoli's views, I have since changed my mind. I may still buy another flint or persussion, but it won't be a Pedersoli. I think people with his views will result in his own companies demise. It's unfortunate, as he makes a sweet looking firearm.

All the best,
Glenn

My, my, my... how things can change overnight. Please refer to my post on my disappointment with CVA to fully understand my changed way of thinking. Now that I have something to reference to, I am now understanding a bit more clearly, the view of those opposed to inline shooting.

All the best,
Glenn

Didn't one of Danny Morgan's boys shoot Gen'l Fraser out of the saddle at Saratoga from 400 yards? Hardly "short range" if true.

May be more than saboted bullets whizzing through those sub-urban acres, Jack.

The Old Guy

The orphan's birgade of sniper's with the BP english Whitworth hexagon 500 grain bullet. and a scope. experimental at the time set up for target shooting that can go out to 1200 yds.

IF we forget our history, it's often Repeated